A West Virginia House of Delegates committee moved forward Tuesday with a rule-making bill that would narrow the scope of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a law passed unanimously in 2014.
The law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for applicants and employees dealing with pregnancy or related medical conditions. It forbids employers from firing an employee - or not hiring a potential employee - because of limitations related to pregnancy or childbirth.
The law, which passed the House 94-0 and the Senate 33-0, also told the state Human Rights Commission, which is responsible for enforcing the law, to write rules for how to best implement the law.
The bill passed by the House Industry and Labor Committee on Tuesday includes several changes to narrow the scope of the law, as envisioned by the Human Rights Commission.
The changes, sponsored by Delegate Kelli Sobonya, R-Cabell, include requiring an employee to get a doctor's note that spells out her limitations and suggests what changes the employer should make.
The bill (HB 4141) also explicitly limits the protections of the law to women. While that might seem an obvious change - it is, after all, called the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act - the Human Rights Commission said the law was intended to apply to all workers who might be affected by a pregnancy or birth.
Cameron McKinney, general counsel for the Human Rights Commission, noted that the law never uses words like "female" or "woman."
"Individual is defined in gender-neutral terms," McKinney said. "It intends to cover any young people who desire to have a family from discrimination. It should not be that the cost of having a family is to sacrifice your livelihood."
Several Democratic delegates, speaking against the bill, envisioned situations where a pregnant woman's spouse could be denied things like time off work to attend doctor's appointments or time off to care for young children during a pregnancy.
However, Sobonya, who wrote the bill as co-chairwoman of the legislative rule-making committee, said the law was specifically intended for pregnant women.
"If they needed extra water, if they needed additional bathroom breaks," Sobonya said. "I voted in favor of the Pregnant Workers Act so that women wouldn't lose that protection."
Delegate Tim Manchin, D-Marion, asked if there were specific circumstances that she was trying to prevent by excluding men from the statute.
"No specific situations came to mind; it was just the policy," Sobonya said. "I don't have to justify the reason for the policy decision, but that's what we did."
Margaret Chapman Pomponio, director of the women's health organization WV Free, said the legislation is "attempting to take away rights from workers and undo the intent of a law that would improve maternal health."
The bill passed the committee on a vote of 12-9, with mostly Republicans in favor and mostly Democrats opposed.
One member who crossed the party line was Delegate Joe Ellington, R-Mercer, chairman of the House Health Committee.
"As an obstetrician, I support women's and also men's rights to bring children into the world," Ellington said. "As this is written, I personally can't support it."
A different version of the bill (SB 216), working its way through the Senate, does not include the doctor's note requirement.
Reach David Gutman at david.gutman@wvgazettemail.com, 304-348-5119 or follow @davidlgutman on Twitter.